Digital Commons @ Gardner-Webb University
Digital Commons @ Gardner-Webb University
Education Dissertations and Projects School of Education
2018
Underachievement in Gifted High School Students: Examining
Underachievement in Gifted High School Students: Examining
School Administrator Perceptions
School Administrator Perceptions
Lamont MooreFollow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.gardner-webb.edu/education_etd
Part of the Educational Administration and Supervision Commons, and the Educational Leadership Commons
By Lamont Moore
A Dissertation Submitted to the
Gardner-Webb University School of Education in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the Degree of Doctor of Education
Gardner-Webb University 2018
ii
Approval Page
This dissertation was submitted by Lamont Moore under the direction of the persons listed below. It was submitted to the Gardner-Webb University School of Education and approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education at Gardner-Webb University.
__________________________________ ________________________ Stephen Laws, Ed.D. Date
Committee Chair
_________________________________ ________________________ David Shellman, Ed.D. Date
Committee Member
_________________________________ ________________________ Thomas Hébert, Ph.D. Date
Committee Member
_________________________________ ________________________ Jeffrey Rogers, Ph.D. Date
Dean of the Gayle Bolt Price School of Graduate Studies
iii
Acknowledgements
For the vision is yet for an appointed time, but at the end it shall speak, and not lie: though it tarry, wait for it; because it will surely come, it will not tarry (Habakkuk 2:3).
I would first like to thank my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, because I am nothing without Him. His grace has carried me to this point, and I know that it will continue to lead me to higher heights.
I would like to thank my maternal grandmother, the late Mary E. Moore. You believed in me before I knew to believe in myself. I love and miss you dearly.
To my mother, Sandra Doster (Greg), you are my rock from whom I have received love, support, and strength my entire life. Thank you for being a living epistle for me and sacrificing to make sure that I succeeded. I love you to life!
To my father, Michael McMoore (Cynthia), thank you for the love and support throughout the years.
To my in-laws, Lee Earnest (Francena) Brown, thank you for encouraging me to accomplish this goal. You are wonderful in-laws!
To my wife, Dr. Shemmicca Moore, thank you for being the wind beneath my wings and encouraging me to push through when things became difficult. I love you!
To my children, Lamiyah and Christopher Moore, I dedicate this work to you and pray that you go further than I could ever go! Above all, you should know that you can do anything you put your minds to. I love you both.
To all of my brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, and cousins who pushed and supported me during this process, thank you!
iv Abstract
Underachievement in Gifted High School Students: Examining School Administrator Perceptions. Moore, Lamont, 2018: Dissertation, Gardner-Webb University,
Underachievement/Gifted Education/Student Achievement/Student Behavior
Throughout the history of gifted education, the underachievement of gifted students has been a conundrum for educators. In fact, underachievement in gifted students is defined in various ways by researchers. A wide range of contributing factors for gifted
underachievement exists in previous studies. The perceptions held by students and educators regarding these factors have been studied by many researchers as an attempt to understand the nuances that exist within the concept of underachievement in gifted students.
This quantitative study examined the perceptions of school administrators concerning the factors that impact underachievement in gifted students. The study surveyed
administrators from multiple school districts in South Carolina. The study sought to gather perceptional data related to how gifted students perceived themselves; how gifted students perceived peers, adults, and society felt about them; and how gifted students perceived instructional programs.
The data analysis revealed that the administrators felt that a lack of student motivation was the biggest factor contributing to the underachievement of gifted students. The research provided in previous studies supported administrator perceptions regarding the lack of student motivation. The research from previous studies also revealed that the quality of instructional programs and teacher skills were big factors contributing to the underachievement of gifted students.
This study did not reveal anything in the data that presents a negative effect on gifted education. It supports the body of research that indicates that the instructional programs for the gifted continue to improve over the years.
v
Table of Contents
Page
Chapter 1: Introduction ...1
Statement of the Problem ...2
Purpose of the Study ...6
Significance of the Study ...7
Context of the Study ...9
Research Question ...10
Background of the Study ...10
Definition of Terms...11
Assumptions ...12
Limitations ...13
Nature of the Study ...13
Organization of the Remainder of the Study ...13
Chapter 2: Review of the Literature ...15
The History of Gifted Education in the United States ...15
Defining Gifted Underachievement ...24
Factors Contributing to Underachievement ...31
Gifted Student Perceptions of Themselves ...31
Gifted Student Beliefs Regarding Peer Perceptions ...35
Gifted Student Beliefs Regarding Adult and Societal Perceptions ...37
Factors of Underachievement Related to Schools and Instructional Programs ...40
Chapter 3: Methodology ...43
Restatement of the Problem ...43
Research Question ...44 Methodology ...44 Participants ...45 Instrument ...46 Validity ...46 Reliability ...47
Data Collection Procedures ...47
Data Analysis ...48
Chapter 4: Report of Data and Data Analysis ...49
Introduction ...49
Presentation of Data ...49
Construct 1: Academic Self-Perceptions ...49
Summary of Construct 1: Academic Self-Perceptions ...52
Construct 2: Attitude Towards Teachers ...52
Summary of Construct 2: Attitude Towards Teachers ...54
Construct 3: Attitude Towards School ...54
Summary of Construct 3: Attitude Towards School ...57
Construct 4: Goal Valuation ...57
Summary of Construct 4: Goal Valuation ...58
Construct 5: Motivation/Self-Regulation ...59
Summary of Construct 5: Motivation/Self-Regulation ...60
Data Cross Tabulation...61
vi Summary of Table 11...63 Summary of Table 12...65 Summary of Table 13...67 Summary of Table 14...69 Summary ...70
Chapter 5: Results and Recommendations ...71
Introduction ...71
Correlations Between this Study and Previous Research ...71
Perceptional Theme 1: Self-Perceptions and Self-Motivation of Gifted Students ...71
Perceptional Theme 2: Adult, Societal, and Peer Perceptions of Gifted Students ...74
Perceptional Theme 3: Impact of School/Instructional Programs on Gifted Students ...75
Implications of Research...77
Recommendations for Further Research ...81
Limitations ...82
Conclusion ...83
References ...85
Appendix Modified School Attitude Assessment Survey-Revised (Draft) ...91
Tables 1 Definitions of Gifted Underachievement that Include a Discrepancy between Potential and Performance ...28
2 Definitions that Emphasize Specific IQ/Ability Test Scores as a Criterion for Identification as a Gifted Underachiever ...29
3 Definitions of Gifted Underachievement that Stress Predicted Achievement vs. Actual Achievement ...30
4 Definitions of Gifted Underachievement that Stress Development of Potential ...30
5 Administrator Perceptions of Gifted Underachievers’ Academic Self-Perceptions ...50
6 Administrator Perceptions of Gifted Underachievers’ Attitudes Toward their Teachers ...53
7 Administrator Perceptions of Gifted Underachievers’ Attitudes Toward their School ...55
8 Administrator Perceptions of Gifted Underachievers’ Goal Valuation ...58
9 Administrator Perceptions of Gifted Underachievers’ Motivation/ Self-Regulation ...59
10 Underachieving gifted students believe they are intelligent. * Underachieving gifted students believe they are responsible students. Cross Tabulation ...61
11 Underachieving gifted students relate well to their teachers. * Teachers make learning interesting for underachieving gifted students. Cross Tabulation ...63
12 Underachieving gifted students find their classes interesting. * Underachieving gifted students believe it is important for them to do well in this school. Cross Tabulation ...65 13 Underachieving gifted students believe that doing well in this school
vii
one of the goals for underachieving gifted students. Cross Tabulation ...67 14 Underachieving gifted students believe they put a lot of effort into their
schoolwork. * Underachieving gifted students believe they are
self-motivated to do their schoolwork. Cross Tabulation ...69 Figures
1 Underachieving Gifted Students Believe They are Intelligent. ...62 2 Underachieving Gifted Students Relate Well to Their Teachers. ...64 3 Underachieving Gifted Students Find Their Classes Interesting. ...66 4 Underachieving Gifted Students Believe that Doing Well in School is
Important for Their Future Career. ...68 5 Underachieving Gifted Students Believe They Put a Lot of Effort Into
Chapter 1: Introduction
Academic underachievement is described as a discrepancy between potential (or ability) and performance (or achievement; Baum, Renzulli, & Hébert, 1995).
Underachievement in students identified as gifted and talented has been a pervasive and persistent issue across the nation. It is a recurring concern for students, parents, and educators in both K-12 education and higher education (Bethea, 2007). Although this is a very widespread occurrence, literature suggests that much of it appears to go undetected (Montgomery, 2009).
The Carnegie Corporation of New York (1996) produced a report that captured the essence of this underachievement phenomenon as it relates to gifted students in the United States. The report stated,
Make no mistake about it; underachievement is not a crisis of certain groups: it is not limited to the poor; it is not a problem afflicting other people’s children. Many middle and upper-income children are also falling behind intellectually. Indeed, by the fourth grade, the performance of most children in the United States is below what it should be for the nation and is certainly below the achievement levels of children in competing countries. (Carnegie Corporation of New York, 1996, p. 1)
Davis and Rimm (2004) indicated that studies on high school dropouts revealed that between 18% and 25% of the students who did not graduate were in the gifted range of abilities. In lieu of this statistic, it is surprising that there is no consensus in the field on the definition of underachievement (Seeley, 2004). Some experts claim that
underachievement only exists when both the measure of performance on standardized achievement or intelligence tests and the evidence of performance on school tasks show a
considerable amount of discrepancy over time (Clark, 2002). Others believe that underachievement is not indicated through the monitoring of test scores and grades but observed through the patterned behaviors of a student (Dai, 2010). Educators do not fully understand why this exists in gifted students (Schultz, 2002). In fact, there is not a
common list of characteristics for the underachieving gifted student upon which educators clearly agree.
Statement of the Problem
According to Oakland and Rossen (2005), the rest of the world consistently outperforms our nation with regard to academic achievement. Our brightest learners continue to experience limited opportunities due to underachievement. The gifted high school learners who consistently underachieve contribute to this evolving concern (Gabelko & Sosniak, 2008). Struggling learners who have lower academic abilities consistently receive more financial resources than students of high abilities. Educators may need to adapt a program intended for all gifted students to meet the specific needs of gifted underachievers as these learners cannot be denied access to educational services that are the most accommodating to their abilities (Bethea, 2007).
In the 2003 report from Colangelo and Davis, it was revealed that 10-15% of high school dropouts tested in the gifted range. The report also revealed that only
approximately 50% of high school underachievers completed 4 years of college. There is a clear misalignment between the low achievement of these gifted learners and the higher performance of their peers who were considered high achievers (not gifted) in high school. These underachievers also failed to attend the rigorous colleges that were attended by the gifted achievers (Colangelo & Davis, 2003).
gifted is a puzzling irony for educators. Because underachieving students are less likely to be recommended for service through gifted education programs than high-achieving students, it stands to reason that those who were identified as gifted and talented were learners who spent at least their early formal schooling years achieving at a high level (Landis & Reschly, 2013). Therefore, when students who are identified as gifted students drop out of high school, they crash from demonstrating greater performance than many of their peers to struggling to obtain minimal levels of education (Landis & Reschly, 2013). The estimated amounts of gifted dropouts vary by study and the definition of gifted status (Matthews, 2006); however, the percentage appears to increase as definitions become less rigid. Underachieving gifted students who drop out of high school experience many of the same negative life outcomes as other dropouts, including reduced earnings and increased need for government assistance (Shaw & Tallent-Runnels, 2007). The potential is diminished and essentially lost with these students; leaving very little to be contributed to society.
Gifted learners, essentially, are identified by the fact that they are learners who have high levels of intelligence and also perform at these high levels. Underachievement, on the other hand, is commonly associated with low performance or a failure to perform at all; thus, it appears at first glance that gifted underachievement is an oxymoron (Hoover-Schultz, 2005).
Gifted underachievement was labelled as a major reform issue in the early 1990s, and the federal government recognized this as a national need with the release of the federally commissioned report, National Excellence: A Case for Developing America’s
Talent (Renzullli, Reid, & Gubbins, 1992). This report urged schools across the nation to reform by doing two things: eliminating barriers that could prevent economically
disadvantaged and culturally and linguistically diverse students from participating in gifted and talented programs and developing strategies to serve students from
underrepresented groups in gifted education programs (Renzullli et al., 1992). This signified the acknowledgement that underachievement was not just an educational enigma, it was a national problem (Hoover-Schultz, 2005).
Educators are not only charged with defining underachievement, they are also expected to identify the causes of it and implement strategies to prevent it. This is a challenge because underachievement within gifted learners is sometimes undetected and mistaken for some other issue. This can be further complicated as underachievers often mask the fact that they may be severely underachieving. As a result, gifted
underachievement becomes linked with a multitude of hypotheses which include low motivation, delinquency, perfectionism, oversensitivity, and moral and ethical concerns (Englund, 2009).
According to a recent article, underachievement often begins in middle school for gifted learners (Ritchotte, Rubenstein, & Murry, 2015). Teachers of gifted middle school learners are often surprised to encounter those who were considered high academic achievers in elementary schools (Ritchotte et al., 2015). The middle school instructional program is cited as a possible culprit for the beginning of underachievement. Either the curriculum is not challenging enough and intensifies the boredom of gifted learners or the curriculum presents a new challenge for gifted students who failed to develop study habits that involve self-regulatory skills. The inability to successfully triumph when faced with a frustrating or difficult-to-solve challenge leaves students vulnerable to poor self-efficacy and, consequently, underachievement. Commonly, gifted students may begin to question whether they are still “gifted” once they enter middle school, which
may in turn produce loss of self-confidence (Ritchotte et al., 2015). This starts the pattern of underachievement that continues well into high school.
Seeley (2004) stated that schools underserve special populations of gifted students, which allows underachievement to go largely unnoticed. A change in
conceptualization of underachievement allows us to look at this population as an at-risk group of learners (Seeley, 2004). It is important to note that the gifted are also within at-risk groups who are receiving attention in public education (Seeley, 2004). Most school reform efforts are focused on many of these at-risk groups, and the highly gifted students who underachieve should also be included in the concerns (Seeley, 2004).
What is not definite, in underachievement research, is a clear understanding of how a child’s achievement or underachievement changes or remains constant over time
(Matthews & McBee, 2007). Some researchers have concluded that, in general, gifted underachievement is reasonably steady over time once recognized (Matthews & McBee, 2007). Other researchers have studied individuals who have successfully reversed behaviors that are associated with underachievement; however, such reversals occur among an indefinite fraction of underachieving students (Matthews & McBee, 2007).
It is important to examine perceptions from school administrators and allow these perceptions to inform educational research and practice in the field (Gentry & Owen, 1999). Due to the increased accountability placed on school administrators, some
researchers now say that school administrators are second only to teachers in their impact on student achievement (Hull, 2012). The relationship between school administrators and student outcomes has been examined in recent studies. These studies indicate that the job of school administrators has drastically changed to now focus on student
2012). Walters, Marzano, and McNulty (2003) reported that highly effective school administrators can increase student scores up to 10 percentile points on standardized tests in just 1 year. Research that seeks to understand how underachievement is perceived among educational leaders is needed (Holman, 2008).
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this research study was to gain an understanding of administrator perceptions of the factors that contribute to the underachievement of gifted learners. The guiding question for the study was, “What are the perceived factors related to the low performance at the high school level by underachieving gifted students?”
Many theories for the causes of underachievement in gifted students exist within the field of education. Many of these theories attribute underachievement to
psychological and internal (personal) factors that are influenced heavily by family dynamics (Grobman, 2006). Interpersonal factors such as low self-esteem, lack of perseverance, lack of self-management skills that come, social stigmas, and many other factors have been noted as causes for underachievement (Hoover-Schultz, 2005).
Other theories attribute underachievement to external (school) factors that exist within the learning environment. These external or school factors include the existence of an anti-intellectual school atmosphere, inflexible graduation requirements, the absence of academic acceleration options, the lack of a continuum of services for gifted learners, and the failure of educators to keep gifted students engaged in the process of learning (Center for Comprehensive School Reform and Improvement, 2008; Hoover-Schultz, 2005).
Davis and Rimm (2004) also stated that approximately 50% of educators are not formally trained or experienced in techniques for teaching the gifted child in their
classroom. Teachers can only identify gifted potential if they are not only aware of the characteristics of gifted children but trained in effective methods. When working with learners who are considered average or below average, teachers must constantly take advantage of opportunities to discover giftedness.
Low self-esteem is consistently found to be characteristic among underachieving gifted students. These students do not fully believe they are competent enough to accomplish what their family, teachers, or society has expected them to accomplish (Davis & Rimm, 2004). The pressures that come with the label of being gifted is stated to potentially be directly related to the manifestation of this low self-esteem in gifted underachievers (Davis & Rimm, 2004). There are also many other contributing factors to gifted underachievement that are related to the perception gifted students have of
themselves, the perception they believe their peers have of them, and the perception they believe adults or society have of them.
Underachievement affects students of various ability ranges but is more prevalent and damaging in some groups than in others (Montgomery, 2009). Gifted students are at particular risk of underachievement and social-emotional difficulties due to the many characteristics involved with giftedness (Blass, 2014). Despite coming from a range of backgrounds and cultures including socioeconomic statuses, abilities, and talents, there are certain traits that gifted students have in common (Blass, 2014). Gifted students are known to be sensitive, perfectionists, and experience social isolation, which are all considered risk factors for poor social-emotional difficulties and underachievement (Blass, 2014).
Significance of the Study
contribute to underachievement. A quantitative approach appropriately served the needs of this study. The surveying of a group of high school leaders outlined specifics related to their perceptions of gifted student underachievement. This study’s purpose was to provide insight into school administrator perceptions of the factors that contribute to underachievement in gifted students. The work of this study was significant as there are far-reaching personal and political implications when gifted students fail to maximize their potential (Hoover-Schultz, 2005).
This study presented a unique angle to the issue of gifted underachievement by focusing on the perceptions held by the educational leaders. This is an area that is not prevalently found in the current research. Research reveals teacher perceptions, parent perceptions, and even student perceptions; however, the perceptions of those who lead schools with gifted underachievers is not well represented in the body of research. This study helped to provide more insight into why school administrators perceive gifted learners underachieve. The findings of this research should help educators differentiate instruction, assist students in achieving the potential their ability indicates, and prevent this cycle for future gifted underachievers.
The research presented not only provided more research on the phenomenon of the high school gifted underachiever but also highlighted the perspectives of the educational leaders who manage their schools. Educational leaders may use these findings to assist other educators in determining how to best identify issues of gifted student underachievers and how to best meet their needs within the classroom.
This research examined administrator perceptions of gifted student
underachievement in order to inform those in the field of education as they work to meet the needs of these learners. The research related to the perceptions of students at the high
school level and why they are underachieving is not plentiful. In response, this study helped provide clarity as to why gifted students experience underachievement. The principles of quantitative methodology were utilized for this study.
According to Schultz (2002), gifted learners in general have distinct needs that should not be ignored by educators. Underachieving gifted students present a different dynamic to this issue and function as a viable topic of research as new insight could provide an opportunity to further prove that gifted learners are unique and need unique services. It is vital for educators to be aware of the fact school administrators have a valuable perspective about underachieving gifted learners. The data from this research may assist the field of education in the quest to find creative ways to design curriculum and instruction that respect the learning needs of this particular at-risk population (Hands, 2009). Educational leaders may utilize this research to lead staff members who are responsible for educating underachieving gifted learners which will enable them to reach their full potential.
Context of the Study
Through the use of a quantitative approach, this study revealed the perceptions of high school administrators in school districts in South Carolina. School administrators were asked to share perspectives on the underachievement of high school gifted and talented students who have a mismatch between their course grades and their scores on standardized assessments.
This research targeted gifted high school students and the factors that are perceived to affect their underachievement. Colangelo and Davis (2003) revealed that 10-15% of high school dropouts tested in the gifted range. The report also revealed that only approximately 50% of high school underachievers completed 4 years of college.
There is a clear misalignment between the low achievement of these gifted learners and the higher performance of their peers who were considered high achievers (not gifted) in high school. These underachievers also failed to attend the rigorous colleges that were attended by the gifted achievers (Colangelo & Davis, 2003). When students who are identified as gifted drop out of high school, they crash from demonstrating greater performance than many of their peers to struggling to obtain minimal levels of education (Landis & Reschly, 2013). Underachieving gifted students who drop out of high school experience many of the same negative life outcomes as other dropouts, including reduced earnings and increased need for government assistance (Shaw & Tallent-Runnels, 2007). The potential is diminished and essentially lost with these students, leaving very little to be contributed to society.
Research Question
The following research question was addressed in this study: What are school administrator perceptions of factors that contribute to underachievement in gifted students?
Background of the Study
For several decades, questions regarding why students with superior abilities failed to achieve academically have been posed by educators. This has dated back as far as 1860 (Golberg, Passow, & Raph, 1966). Gifted underachievement within the United States and research regarding it have been traced back to before World War I. The expression “gifted” was not defined formally by the federal government until the 1970’s
in the Marland Report; and correspondingly, the advocacy for gifted programs accelerated, especially in recent years (Hoover-Schultz, 2005). Advocates for gifted children depict them as learners who possess extraordinary abilities and needs that are
partially fulfilled in the traditional classroom (Davis & Rimm, 2004).
South Carolina State Law 59-29-170 states that gifted and talented students at the elementary and secondary levels must be provided programs during the regular school year or during summer school to develop their unique talents in the manner the State Board of Education must specify and to the extent state funds are provided (South Carolina General Assembly, 2014). South Carolina Board of Education Regulation 43-220 defines gifted and talented students as those who are identified in Grades 1-12 as demonstrating high performance ability or potential in academic and/or artistic areas and therefore require educational programming beyond that normally provided by the general school programming in order to achieve their potential. South Carolina Board of
Education Regulation 43-220 states that school districts must provide instructional services beyond the regular classroom setting to gifted and talented students who show high ability in three areas: intellectual, artistic, or a specific academic subject (South Carolina State Board of Education, 2013). Funding for gifted and talented programs has historically been an issue across the nation; and in many schools, resources have been drastically cut or eliminated altogether. In South Carolina, gifted and talented programs are funded at 50% of what is recommended in SC Law 59-29-170. It is arguable that gifted students have unique educational needs just as students who are served through special education programs.
Definition of Terms
Vital terms that are used at length in this study are defined as follows.
Achievement test. An assessment that is used to indicate an academic talent
within a learned content area. These are standardized tests that produce scores based on national norms (Davis & Rimm, 2004).
Gifted underachiever. A learner who possesses a discrepancy between expected
and actual academic performance that is not the result of a diagnosed learning disability (Sousa, 2009). This could also be a learner who has shown or who has potential for exceptional performance but is falling short of fulfilling this potential as measured by school grades and an identified gifted student who receives a “C” or below (gifted is
defined as above average, whereas “C” is defined as average in the sampled school district).
Perception. For the purpose of this study, this was defined as one’s own
awareness of one’s understanding of a particular issue or concept.
Underachievement. Davis and Rimm (2004) defined underachievementas a discrepancy between the child’s school performance and some index of his or her actual
ability such as intelligence, achievement, creativity scores, or observational data. The main index of ability is test scores.
Gifted learner. The 1993 federal definition states children and youth with
outstanding talent perform or show the potential for performing at remarkably high levels of accomplishment when compared with others of their age, experience, or environment. These children and youth exhibit high performance capability in intellectual, creative, and/or artistic areas; possess an unusual leadership capacity; or excel in specific academic fields. They require services of activities not ordinarily provided by the schools.
Outstanding talents are present in children and youth from all cultural groups, across all economic strata, and in all areas of human endeavor (Davis & Rimm, 2004).
Assumptions
The following assumptions were present in this study.
administrators who lead schools with gifted students who underachieve. 2. The participants are honest in their responses throughout the study and
understand the grounds of the questions.
3. Prior knowledge of the phenomenon of gifted underachievers by the researcher and the participants is excluded from the results.
Limitations
This research study was devised to gather the perceptions of high school
administrators of gifted underachieving learners and their explanations for why they are underachieving. The following limitations may have been present in this study.
1. The study population represents high schools without an identified talented and gifted program.
2. Included within the study is the bias of the researcher and the participants. 3. The participants represent a small, unscientific sampling of the high school
administrators for this gifted population. Nature of the Study
The nature of this study reflected the identification of themes from the experiences of secondary school administrators and their perceptions of why gifted learners were underachieving in classrooms. Participants were given a survey that allowed for quantitative information to be provided. High school administrators were selected based on the district roster and the administrators’ work with advanced academic
or gifted education programs within the school. District-level permission was obtained using an approved Internal Review Board (IRB) process prior to initiating the study. Organization of the Remainder of the Study
multiple facets of the field of education. The research of this study is presented in five chapters. Chapter 1 outlines the introduction of the problem, background of the study, statement of the problem, purpose of the study, rationale, research questions, significance of the study, definition of the terms, assumptions, limitations, nature of the study, and organization of the study. Chapter 2 details a literature review of previous studies, pertinent historical background, and the defining of underachievement. Chapter 3 includes an introduction to the methodology, research design, population and sampling procedure, sources of data, validity and reliability, data analysis, and ethical
considerations. The results of the study are located in Chapter 4, while Chapter 5 provides a summary of the research findings, related conclusions, implications, and recommendations.
Chapter 2: Review of the Literature
Helping learners achieve their maximum academic potential is an increasingly challenging task for public schools (Reis & McCoach, 2000). Gifted learners present a unique perspective to this challenge because, for many public schools, explaining this enigma can create controversy (Reis & McCoach, 2000). High school gifted
underachievers, who for the purposes of this study are defined as learners who are enrolled in Grades 9-12 and have been identified as gifted and talented, are particularly puzzling to educators.
In this chapter, literature related to (a) the history of gifted education, (b) defining gifted underachievement, (c) factors contributing to underachievement, and (d) recent studies on underachievement will be examined to connect the purpose of this study and its design. This chapter also includes suggestions, found through this research, which schools might use to be more successful in addressing underachievement in gifted learners. The information contained in this chapter is essential to educators in South Carolina because the global purpose of education is to ensure the success of all learners, one of the national priority goals is to improve learning by ensuring that more students have effective teachers and leaders, and because South Carolina has established several closing-the-gap initiatives.
The History of Gifted Education in the United States
Recognition of the need to educate intellectually advanced students dates back to 380 B.C. when the philosopher Plato created a free academy for boys and girls that was based on intelligence and physical ability (Housand, 2014). This academy continued until 529 A.D. when Emperor Justinian closed it. Education for the gifted remained dormant throughout the Dark Ages (500-1000 A.D.), throughout the Renaissance
(1200-1500 A.D.), and through the 16th century. In 1868, a school to educate the gifted was founded in St. Louis, Illinois by the superintendent of public school William Torrey Harris. This marked the nation’s earliest initiative to educate gifted students in public
schools (Housand, 2014).
At the turn of the century, which was only 33 years later, evidence of our nation’s desire to implement a separate instructional program for gifted students emerged. In 1901, the first special school for gifted children was opened in Worster, Massachusetts. Four years later, French researchers Binet and Simon developed a series of tests to identify children functioning at various intelligence levels. These tests were designed with the purpose of measuring mental age (Regional Office of Education, 2014).
Initially, these tests were used to separate children with lower intelligence and place them into special classes (Housand, 2014). It was not until 1920 that the term “gifted” was first used by Lewis Terman. Terman was also credited for developing the Standford-Binet Intelligence Scale which revolutionized the field of education (Regional Office of Education, 2014).
By the mid-1900s, there was quite a buzz in the field of gifted education;
however, in 1941, only 2-4% of the nation’s schools were determined to have services for the gifted and talented. This was determined by a study conducted by Paul Witty
(Regional Office of Education, 2014). A year later, Leta Hollingworth opened a school for gifted learners and published the very first textbook on gifted education (Regional Office of Education, 2014).
In 1954, the National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC) was founded and the “Gifted Child Quarterly” was first published (Regional Office of Education, 2014).
practices that encouraged and responded to diverse expressions of gifts and talents in children and youth from all cultures, racial and ethnic backgrounds, and socioeconomic groups. The organization engaged in research, development, professional learning, advocacy, communication, and collaboration with other organizations and agencies that worked to improve the quality of education for all students (NAGC, 2015). NAGC’s (2015) overall goal was to make gifted learners a national priority by investing resources to train teachers, encourage parents, and educate administrators and policymakers on how to develop and support gifted children.
This overall goal of NAGC (2015) was drilled down to be expressed in four strategic goals to drive the work of the national organization. The first strategic goal was related to leadership. NAGC worked to be established as the leader in establishing that schools be the place where children with great promise, regardless of background, were guaranteed to have the resources and variety of educational settings that they needed to achieve at the highest levels (NAGC, 2015). This goal was actualized in the hosting of the annual NAGC national conference (NAGC, 2015). The conference functioned as a summit to convene well-known thinkers from a variety of domains and disciplines with leaders who were interested in defining the connection between giftedness and the national interest (NAGC, 2015). The second strategic goal of NAGC was to influence change through the anticipation of trends, the identification of partners, and development of synergetic relationships that nurture high-potential youth. The third goal of NAGC was to develop the expertise inside and outside the field of gifted education to ensure that parents and all professionals have the knowledge and skills to support high-potential youth. Much of this work was accomplished through the creation of the NAGC standards and their “Gifted Child Quarterly” publication (NAGC, 2015). The final strategic goal of
this organization was to augment and align financial, human, and product resources so the organization would be effective in responding to opportunities for innovation and member needs (NAGC, 2015). This was accomplished by establishing national committees, networks, and task forces that engaged the nation in the work of the organization (NAGC, 2015).
Finally, in 1958, the federal government took note and passed the National Defense Education Act. This effort focused on collegiate studies and also provided funding to state educational agencies to improve instruction in science, mathematics, and modern foreign languages (Kosar, 2011). This was considered the first large scale effort affecting the field of gifted education to be issued by the federal government (Housand, 2014).
Shortly after this major effort in gifted education through the improvement of science and mathematics instruction, the nation became the leader in the space race and the interest in gifted and talented declined (Regional Office of Education, 2014). This decline continued until 1972 with the publishing of the Marland Report. The Marland Report was the first national report on gifted education and is most notably known for its definition of giftedness (McClellan, 1985). Two years after the release of the Marland Report, the U.S. Office of Education gave the Office of Gifted and Talented an official status (NACG, 2014).
In 1983, America’s brightest students and their failure to compete with their international counterparts were highlighted in A Nation at Risk. This report outlined many indicators of the risk that our country was not providing all citizens with the opportunity to develop their individual powers of mind and spirit to the utmost (National Commission of Excellence in Education, 1983). One of the indicators highlighted
underachievement in gifted students when it stated that over half of the population of gifted students do not match their tested ability with comparable achievement in school (National Commission of Excellence in Education, 1983). This report went on to outline appropriate policies, practices, and curriculum for gifted education.
Only 5 years later, Congress passed the Jacob Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Act (Javits). The Javits Act was passed to support the development of talent in U.S. schools (NAGC, 2015). This was the only federal program dedicated specifically to gifted and talented students (NAGC, 2015). This act however was not designed to fund local gifted education programs. Its purpose was to support scientifically based research, demonstration projects, innovative strategies, and similar activities to both build and enhance schools to meet the needs of gifted learners (NAGC, 2015). The Javits Act focused resources on identifying and serving traditionally underrepresented groups in gifted and talented programs. This was particularly to include economically
disadvantaged, limited-English proficient, and disabled students. The goals were to help reduce achievement gaps and encourage the establishment of equal opportunities for all students (NAGC, 2015). The Javits Act funded demonstration grants as well as a National Research and Development Center which ensures that research in this field continued to inform educational practice (NAGC, 2015). This research included exploratory study, impact evaluations, and leadership and outreach activities (NAGC, 2015). This was all a part of the Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
The year 1990 brought about the establishment of several National Research Centers on the Gifted and Talented through the funding of the Jacob Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Act. Centers were housed at Yale University, the
University of Georgia, the University of Connecticut, and the University of Virginia. These centers were created to sustain research on gifted students. Three years later, the U.S. Department of Education outlined the neglect of America’s most talented youth in a
report entitled National Excellence: The Case for Developing America’s Talent. This report also provided several recommendations that went on to influence research in gifted education (NAGC, 2015).
In 2002, the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) was passed as the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The Jacob Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Act, which was included in NCLB, was broadened to include state grants. This also introduced a revised definition of gifted and talented students. These students were defined as students, children, or youth who give evidence of high
achievement capability in areas such as intellectual, creative, artistic, or leadership capacity or in specific academic fields and who need services and activities not ordinarily provided by the school in order to fully develop those capabilities (NAGC, 2015).
In 2004, a national report entitled A Nation Deceived: How Schools Hold Back America’s Brightest Students was published by the Belin-Blank Center at the University
of Iowa. This report outlined research-based strategies for advanced learners.
Only 2 years later, NAGC published the National Gifted Education Standards. These standards were intended for teacher preparation programs and to provide general knowledge and skill standards in gifted education for all teachers. Teacher standards are necessary to ensure that the top learners are adequately identified and nurtured in the context of school settings (VanTassel-Baska & Johnsen, 2007). Previously, the field of gifted education utilized standards that were created in 1985 by the Council for
(VanTassel-Baska & Johnsen, 2007).
Six major differences existed between the older standards from 1985 and the ones introduced in 2006 (VanTassel-Baska & Johnsen, 2007). One difference was that the newer standards emphasized state-of-the-art, research-based best practice in the field of gifted education (VanTassel-Baska & Johnsen, 2007). The newer standards reflected the evolution of the field since the initial adoption of the original standards. Another
difference was the fact that the newer standards were developed through a consensus over time (VanTassel-Baska & Johnsen, 2007). While the older standards were developed primarily by one national organization, the newer standards incorporated the efforts of a joint task force that included various stakeholders and experts from the field of gifted education (VanTassel-Baska & Johnsen, 2007). Because the older standards were not developed in this manner and adhered very closely to the language and spirit of the field of special education in terms of instruction and assessment, they were criticized by university educators as not being reflective of the field of gifted education (VanTassel-Baska & Johnsen, 2007). The joint task force approach that the new standards utilized allowed for an alignment between the content emphases of the standards and the desired practice (VanTassel-Baska & Johnsen, 2007). A third difference between the old
standards from 1985 and the new standards was the fact that the new standards reflected a much stronger emphasis on diversity (VanTassel-Baska & Johnsen, 2007). Diversities in culture, intellect, linguistics, sexual orientation, and disability were all strategically integrated into the language of the indicators as well as the standards themselves. Issues such as cultural stereotyping, tolerance for differentness, and the celebration of
multiculturalism proved to be important parts of the new standards. Because of the underrepresentation of specific groups receiving educational services for the gifted and
talented, the task force was mindful to make sure that the new standards stressed diversity (VanTassel-Baska & Johnsen, 2007). Approximately 40% of the new standards
explicitly addressed diversity (VanTassel-Baska & Johnsen, 2007). The fourth difference between the old and new standards was that the new standards reflect a stronger emphasis on the practice of appropriate differentiation. Depth and breadth were added to the indicators that related to instructional planning and strategies with more tailored emphases (VanTassel-Baska & Johnsen, 2007). A fifth difference was that the new standards were written to highlight cognitive science research and findings from other related domains of learning beyond the gifted community (VanTassel-Baska & Johnsen, 2007). Research on learning strategies that emphasized higher order thinking, concept mapping, metacognition, and problem-solving became the foundation of the newer standards (VanTassel-Baska & Johnsen, 2007). Although many of these elements were included in the older standards, they were addressed to the same degree as the newer standards. The final difference between the new standards and the old standards was the fact that the new standards reflected the connections between gifted education, special education, and general education. This was done through the linkages to content expertise in instructional strategies, the educational reform agenda, and the use of technology (VanTassel-Baska & Johnsen, 2007).
The introduction of these new standards represented a new era in consensus on what teachers must understand and be able to demonstrate competency for in gifted education (VanTassel-Baska & Johnsen, 2007). The standards influenced the initial and advanced preparation of educators of gifted students (Johnsen, 2012). According to Johnsen (2012), the use of professional standards has a positive effect on professional competence and the field of gifted education. She went on to state that the use of
standards legitimizes the field of gifted education; builds consensus; offers guidance for the development of programs at the university, state, and local levels; and evaluates and advocates for the field (Johnsen, 2012).
These standards were revised in 2013. Although the content of the standards and elements were not substantially changed, the original 10 standards were reduced to seven standards (Johnsen et al., 2015). The original 77 elements were reduced to only 28 and placed within the new seven standards (Johnsen et al., 2015). Redundancy was
eliminated and closely related elements were combined. The elements were tweaked to focus on what educators needed to know rather than on student performance (Johnsen et al., 2015). Narratives that helped educators to understand the standards and elements were rewritten to elaborate more on the required foundational knowledge and skills. The research base for the 2006 standards was updated and expanded in the 2013 revision by incorporating the latest research regarding effective practices with students (Johnsen et al., 2015). This research included literature/theory-based, research-based, and practice-based research. A marked alignment to the Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) standards was evident in the revision when examining the language used to develop the titles of the revised standards (Johnsen et al., 2015). InTASC is a consortium of state educational agencies and national educational organizations dedicated to the reform of the preparation, licensing, and ongoing
professional development of teachers (InTASC, 2013). The language for the titles of the revised standards came directly from the 2011 InTASC Model Core Teaching Standards (Johnsen et al., 2015). The sharing of this common language allowed educators to collaborate within and beyond the field of gifted education (Johnsen et al., 2015).
was reinstated after being halted in fiscal year 2011 (Samuels, 2014). Five million dollars were allocated to fund applied research initiatives in the field of gifted education. This was released in the same budget that provided an increase of $497 million for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act which brought its total funding to $11.5 billion (Samuels, 2014). Also in 2014, approximately $732 million was allocated for English Learner Education. In 2015, the U.S. Congress decided to double the Jacob Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Act funding to $10 million to fund additional research initiatives, to continue the work of the National Center on Research on Gifted Education, and to make more grant funds available competitively to states and districts to support their work with underserved, high-ability students (NAGC, 2015). Eight states also received state grants to support schools and teachers in the identification of and provision of services to gifted and talented students (including economically disadvantage individuals, individuals with limited English proficiency, and individuals with disabilities) who may not be identified and served through traditional assessment methods (NAGC, 2015). Fiscal year 2016 funding for the Javits program continued in the same pattern as fiscal year 2015. For 2016, the Senate appropriations committee approved $11 million for the Javits program, while the House eliminated the program (NAGC, 2015). The two chambers are presently working to reconcile differences
between the funding levels for the support of gifted and talented students (NAGC, 2015). Defining Gifted Underachievement
Defining underachievement has not been an easy task to accomplish. Attempts dating as far back as 1980 reveal that there has been no universally agreed upon definition of underachievement (Reis & McCoach, 2000). Reis and McCoach (2000) reviewed 3 decades of research on the underachievement of gifted students. Their
research did not reveal one definition for gifted underachievement but did reveal three general themes that emerged from the operational and conceptual definitions of gifted underachievement.
The first theme portrayed underachievement as a discrepancy between potential (or ability) and performance (or achievement). Table 1 outlines key authors and their definitions that fall in this first theme. Key researchers related to this theme included Susan M. Baum, Joseph S. Renzulli, and Thomas Hébert. These researchers collaborated in a multiple case study that was described in the report entitled The Prism Metaphor: A New Paradigm for Reversing Underachievement. In this report, it was concluded that underachievement could be influenced by a variety of factors. Those factors included emotional issues, social and behavior problems, inappropriate curriculum, and learning deficits (Baum et al., 1995). Teacher behaviors were also stated to help reverse
underachievement. Six specific behaviors that promoted student success were taking time to get to know the students, focusing on positive traits of the students, focusing energies on locating and providing resources for the students, understanding the
individualized small group investigations of real problems, applying the role of teacher as researcher, and conveying a belief in student abilities (Baum et al., 1995).
Emerick concurred with this theme as he measured potential in gifted students through standardized achievement tests and scores on aptitude tests while identifying underachievement through the poor performance on classroom test scores, grades, and teacher observations. Whitmore examined the discrepancy between high aptitude test scores and low grades and/or achievement scores. Whitmore also looked at the
discrepancy between high achievement test scores but low classroom grades and/or poor daily work (Reis & McCoach, 2000). Discrepancies that were found between any of
these elements indicated underachievement. Butler-Por also defined underachievement as a large discrepancy between school performance and potential (Reis & McCoach, 2000).
The second theme that emerged from this research is that underachievement is a discrepancy between predicted achievement and actual achievement. A smaller group of authors were noted as falling within this theme. This theme, as illustrated in Tables 2 and 3, views underachievement as a regression equation involving human potential and performance (Reis & McCoach, 2000). These authors believed that when students (on measures of achievement) perform at levels below what one would expect based on measures of ability, the student is underachieving (Reis & McCoach, 2000).
One of the noted researchers from Table 3, Richard Redding, defined
underachievement as the discrepancy between actual Grade Point Average (GPA) and predicted GPA (Reis & McCoach, 2000). Redding (1990) is documented as referring to this as a “performance discrepancy” in his study of 50 gifted underachieving students
from the middle/upper middle class of a suburban junior high school. Redding predicted that student mean scores on an achievement subtest that required analytical processing would be lower than their mean scores on subtests that require a holistic information processing style. The results proved this to be significantly true (Redding, 1990). Redding concluded that underachievers perform at high levels on tasks that require synthesis and poorly on tasks that require detailed, computational or convergent problem-solving skills (Redding, 1990). He further asserted that the deficiency shown in
analytical tasks does not appear to be due to cognitive inferiority in analytical or convergent problem-solving skills. He inferred that learning styles or specific skill deficits, rather than discrepant intellectual abilities, may determine the discrepancy in the
performance results (Redding, 1990).
The third theme expresses that a student’s failure to develop or utilize latent
potential is underachievement. This theme makes no reference to other external criteria (Reis & McCoach, 2000). Researchers who propose definitions related to this theme do not attempt to clearly define or assess potential. Underachievers in this theme are viewed as individuals who failed to self-actualize (Reis & McCoach, 2000). Table 4 outlines two researchers who define underachievement in this manner. One of them, Sylvia Rimm, also published an article entitled “An Underachievement Epidemic in 1997.” In this article, Rimm asserted that research that defines underachievement in terms of a relationship between a student’s achievement and IQ scores provides an inadequate
explanation of underachievement (Rimm, 1997). Rimm stated that because of test problems related to cultural differences, a rigid definition that compares only test scores underrepresents the number of underachievers on a large scale (Rimm, 1997). She further suggested that when children underachieve over time, both IQ and achievement test scores may decline. Rimm’s definition of underachievement describes it as a
discrepancy between a child’s school performance and some index of the child’s ability.
If the child is not working to their ability in school, they are underachieving (Rimm, 1997).
Table 1
Definitions of Gifted Underachievement That Include a Discrepancy Between Potential and Performance
Author Date Key Concept
Whitmore 1980 High aptitude scores but low grades and achievement test scores, or high achievement test scores but low grades due to poor daily work.
Butler-Por 1987 Large discrepancy between school performance and potential. Emerick 1992 Evidence of giftedness included standardized achievement test
scores, scores on tests of general aptitude, or other indicators of potential for well-above average academic performance. Evidence of underachievement included average or below
average academic performance as assessed by test scores, grades, and teacher observations.
Baum, Renzulli, & Hébert
1995 High potential as evidenced by intelligence, achievement tests, or tests of specific aptitude, teacher observation, grades;
underachievement as evidenced by discrepancy between performance and potential.
Table 2
Definitions that Emphasize Specific IQ/Ability Test Scores as a Criterion for Identification as a Gifted Underachiever
Author Date Key Concept
Gowan 1957 Giftedness as evidenced by an IQ of 130 or above. Diagnosis of underachievement occurs when a student falls in the middle third in scholastic achievement in grades, and severe
underachievement occurs when a student falls in the lowest third in scholastic achievement.
Krouse & Krouse
1981 Underachievers—those individuals who consistently, over a number of years, perform at higher levels on instruments of academic aptitude or intelligence than they do in regular classroom situations.
Green, Fine, &
Tollesfson
1988 Giftedness as evidenced by scores in the top 2% of the Tollesfson norm group on an intelligence test.
Underachievement as evidenced by one of the following criteria: (a) earning a C or below in at least one major academic subject; (b) having at least a one-year difference between expected and actual performance on a standardized achievement test; or (c) failing to complete work or submitting incomplete work at least 25% of the time as indicated by teacher records.
Supplee 1990 High academic ability as assessed through an IQ score or through achievement test scores at the eighth or ninth stanine. Low achievement as evidenced by achievement test scores that were at least two stanines lower than the IQ score, or by teacher ratings, or by school grades showing marked discrepancy from expected achievement based on IQ or achievement tests. Colangelo 1993 Giftedness as evidenced by scores at the 95th percentile or above
on the ACT; underachievement as evidenced by GPA of 2.25 or below in high school coursework.
Table 3
Definitions of Gifted Underachievement That Stress Predicted Achievement vs. Actual Achievement
Author Date Key Concept
Thorndike 1963 Underachievement refers to the fact that a group of pupils all of the same age, the same IQ, the same type of home background will still vary in the scores they receive in school.
Redding 1990 Underachievement—the discrepancy between actual GPA and predicted GPA, based upon a regression procedure used to predict GPA based upon full-scale WiSC-R IQ scores.
Gallagher 1991 If the actual achievement scores fall some distance lower than what was predicted the student can be labeled underachiever. Lupart &
Pyryt
1996 1. Determine the correlation between IQ and achievement. 2. Estimate the expected IQ in relation to achievement for each student using the standard error of estimate. 3. Individuals with a discrepancy beyond one standard error of estimate were targeted as possible underachievers.
Table 4
Definitions of Gifted Underachievement That Stress Development of Potential
Author Date Key Concept
Richert 1991 1. Achievement among gifted students—developing four aspects of giftedness: Ability, Creativity, Productivity Performance, Motivation-Emotions-Values.
Rimm 1997 If students are not working to their ability in school, they are underachieving.
Defining underachievement has been difficult for researchers to agree upon because of the misalignment of several practices and philosophies within the field of gifted education. One of these practices is the identification of gifted students. This practice can vary from state to state and from school district to school district (Reis & McCoach, 2000). It becomes difficult to clearly define underachievement if there are
varying philosophies related to the identification of gifted students and the philosophies are not comparable.
Factors Contributing to Underachievement
Because underachievement is such a conundrum for theorists and practitioners in gifted education, it is important to examine what research reports to be contributing factors of underachievement. After examining research, factors contributing to
underachievement could be organized into three perceptional themes: factors related to the perception gifted students had of themselves, factors related to the perception gifted students believed their peers had of them, and factors related to the perception gifted students believed adults or society had of them.
Gifted Student Perceptions of Themselves
Psychiatrist Jerald Grobman conducted a study on a group of exceptionally gifted adolescents between the ages of 14 and 25. These students were referred to Dr. Grobman for exhibiting behaviors related to self-destructive behavior, anxiety, depression, and underachievement. They were treated by Dr. Grobman over the course of a number of years (Grobman, 2006). Dr. Grobman’s study of these individuals revealed six emotional factors that contributed to the adolescents’ underachievement. Three of the emotional factors related to the individuals’ perceptions of themselves.
The first factor Grobman (2006) reported was that these individuals possessed feelings of being controlled rather than being in control. Many of them had an internal drive that pushed them to explore their curiosities and to challenge common
understandings. Although at times many of them found that it was exhilarating to give into this internal drive, at other times they felt that it was imprisoning. These adolescents felt that they were being ruled by forces beyond their control (Grobman, 2006).
Another factor from Grobman’s (2006) study pointed to these individuals viewing
themselves as a failure. They were described as often having struggles with their own internal criticisms of themselves (Grobman, 2006). They often experienced multiple frustrations with their attempts to perfectly reproduce what was in their mind’s eye (Grobman, 2006). As opposed to facing their limitations, these individuals would often give up or withdraw into their own private world where there were no efforts or failures (Grobman, 2006).
A third factor mentioned in the study referenced their irrational fears of
defectiveness or disability. In addition to feeling like failures, they worried that aspects of their giftedness were flawed (Grobman, 2006). Even when no one else agreed with their worries or perceptions of themselves, these individuals held on to their anxieties irrationally.
Galbraith and Delisle (2015) stated that underachievement ultimately tied to the development of a child’s self-image. They asserted that when children learned to see
themselves in terms of failures, it eventually caused them to place self-imposed limits on what is possible (Galbraith & Delisle, 2015). Academic successes are written off as lucky accidents, while low grades and achievement reinforce negative perceptions that they have of themselves. This results in internal and/or external comments about themselves such as “Why should I even try,” or “Nothing I ever do is good enough, so why bother?” The end result is a low self-image which causes the students to see
themselves as academically weak, and the underachieving cycle continues (Galbraith & Delisle, 2015).
Bourgeois (2011) conducted a qualitative study that examined the
of the study was to identify influences that caused the students to underperform in comparison to their academic abilities (Bourgeois, 2011). Students who were classified as gifted but failed to perform up to their identified academic abilities met the criteria for underachievement as established by this study (Bourgeois, 2011). Bourgeois interviewed counselor-selected students from five school districts across South Carolina’s upstate region who were identified as underachieving.
Bourgeois (2011) used a semi-structured interview method that allowed her to ask 10 open-ended questions to collect data based on participant views and experiences. The interviews were taped and interpreted to assist Bourgeois in identifying common themes (Bourgeois, 2011). A lack of self-motivation was determined to be the key factor that contributed to underachievement among gifted students in this study (Bourgeois, 2011). The failure to present challenging curriculum and a lack of training by teachers in educating gifted students are factors that were noted as aiding in a lack of inner motivation among the students (Bourgeois, 2011).
Rand (2005) conducted a case study of five students to examine factors that were perceived to be contributors to student underachievement in a charter school for gifted students. The students in the study were classified as underachieving by their school counselor because they fit into the following criteria:
The student must have received a final grade of C or lower for the 2002-03 school year at the high school at which the study was conducted, in at least two core classes (English, social studies, math, science, and/or foreign language). (Rand, 2005, p. 21)
One of the major focuses of this study was to gauge student perceptions on what it was like to be an underachiever in a high school for the gifted (Rand, 2005). Rand
(2005) conducted two audiotaped student interviews per student, one at the beginning of the school term followed by one during the middle of the year; at least one classroom observation on each student; and an audiotaped interview with the students’ teachers and one with the school counselor to collect data for the study. Based on the findings from Rand, the students in her study reported that they were not prepared in the earlier years for the academic rigor of a gifted high school; and others reported that they were not concerned about being viewed as underachieving because grades were not an indication of learning. The teachers and counselors stressed that not every student was gifted in every academic area, but some students were able to perform well even in the areas that they were not identified as gifted through hard-work and dedication (Rand, 2005).
Fisher (2003) conducted a comparative study to compare the differences in self-concept, academic behavior, and self-reported personal experience between a group of Black high-achieving and underachieving students. The study was designed to
understand factors that contribute to the successfulness or the underachievement of African heritage students who were judged by their teachers to have high ability for academic success (Fisher, 2003). The study used both qualitative and quantitative methodologies. Fourteen males and females from one central Massachusetts high school were used for this study. The significant findings included that there were differences in ethnic and linguistic background, participation in extracurricular activities, parental attitudes toward school, student attitudes toward school, and differences in the formation of goals between the high-achieving students and the underachieving students (Fisher, 2003). The conclusion made by this study was that the high achievers of African descent were motivated and invested in their education as a result of various factors including family influences, self-determination, and participation in organized extracurricular
